How to handle a workshop sniper without getting into a duel

You’re explaining an activity when someone leans back and says, “So we’re doing sticky notes instead of solving the problem?”

A few people laugh. You haven’t finished the instructions, and you’re already preparing a defence of your profession.

Meet the workshop sniper. A sarcastic aside here, a pointed question there, usually delivered while you’re trying to move things forward.

I like the nickname. Just be careful with it: once you’ve decided someone is the difficult one, you can stop hearing what they’re actually saying. The person mocking your sticky notes might have sat through three workshops that produced absolutely nothing.

You’ll need to understand their concern. You’ll also need to keep the session moving and make sure everyone else can contribute.

Check your own question before returning fire

“Do you have a better idea?” is a tempting reply. Depending on how you say it, you might even convince yourself you’re being curious.

Facilitation author Roger Schwarz suggests a useful check: silently add “you idiot” to the end of the question you’re about to ask. If it fits comfortably, reconsider the question.

“Do you have a better idea, you idiot?” fits rather well.

Schwarz calls this the “you idiot” test. It’s a practical way to catch a question that’s really an accusation. Please do keep the test inside your head.

For the sticky-note objection, you could say:

“I’m asking everyone to write first so we hear from the quieter people too. What worries you about that?”

Schwarz also recommends explaining your reasoning when you ask a question. Otherwise, a series of apparently curious questions can start to feel like an interrogation.

Take the concern seriously enough to investigate it

Suppose the participant says, “We did this last year. Nothing happened.”

Before reassuring them that this time will be different, find out what went wrong:

“What happened to the ideas afterwards?”

Perhaps nobody owned the follow-up. Perhaps management had already made the decision. Perhaps there’s a report somewhere that you should have read before designing this session.

Their answer could change what you do next.

If today’s workshop includes choosing actions and assigning owners, explain that. If you don’t know who will follow through, clarify it with the sponsor. Promising results just to settle the room will only give the next facilitator a harder job.

A 2024 paper by Guy Itzchakov and colleagues gives some support to listening before arguing. Across four experiments, attentive, understanding listening helped people reflect less defensively during disagreement and reduced the extremity of their attitudes.

Those experiments didn’t test disruptive workshop participants. They don’t give us a technique guaranteed to make someone cooperate. They do suggest that preparing your rebuttal while someone speaks is a missed opportunity.

And sometimes the answer is simple:

“You’re right. We need to sort that out before doing this exercise.”

Ask the group a question they can actually answer

“What does everyone else think?” can turn one sarcastic remark into a twenty-minute detour.

Before opening the discussion, decide what you need to learn from the group. If the objection is that your exercise ignores an important constraint, ask:

“Which constraints do we need to include before we start?”

If someone questions whether the group has authority to act, clarify which decisions participants can make today.

A specific question helps people contribute without taking sides in an argument between you and the sniper. It also gives quieter participants a way to raise concerns they may share.

Avoid asking the room to judge the person. “Does anyone else think we’re being too negative?” is unlikely to make the conversation easier.

If everyone else has become an audience, change the format

After several exchanges with one person, look around. Have you heard from anyone else recently?

Instead of opening the floor again, give everyone a minute to write:

“We’ve heard a few concerns. Before we continue, take a minute to write down any risks you think we’re missing. Then compare notes with the person next to you.”

Gather those concerns and decide which need attention.

This borrows from 1-2-4-All, a Liberating Structures method that starts with individual reflection, moves through pairs and groups of four, then brings everyone back together. Use the full sequence when the question deserves more time.

The point is to give everyone an opportunity to contribute, including the critic. Don’t use an activity to dodge an objection you haven’t answered. If someone has been personally attacked, deal with that before asking people to pair up.

Be direct when interruptions keep happening

You can take an objection seriously and still ask someone to stop interrupting.

Describe what happened:

“You interrupted Sam before she finished. Sam, please carry on. Then we’ll come to your concern.”

If it keeps happening:

“This has happened several times now. I need you to let people finish before responding.”

Stick to behaviour you can observe. “You’re trying to undermine the workshop” introduces an argument about motives that neither of you can easily resolve.

There’s a reason to pay attention to the effect on the whole group. In a 2015 randomized study published in Pediatrics, 24 neonatal intensive-care teams took part in a medical simulation. Teams exposed to mildly rude comments performed worse on diagnostic and procedural tasks than teams receiving neutral comments.

A medical simulation is a long way from a workshop. I wouldn’t use those results to predict what one sarcastic remark will do to your group. I would be wary of assuming that rudeness affects only the person it’s aimed at.

You can also close a discussion that has run its course:

“We’ve heard the concern about timing. We have twenty minutes left, so I’m going to shorten the exercise and keep ten minutes for deciding what happens next.”

Explain the decision. If you promise to revisit something, make time for it.

Have a private conversation if the pattern continues

A break gives you a chance to talk without an audience.

“You’ve questioned several parts of the session. What’s bothering you?”

Let them answer. They may have been sent to a workshop whose purpose nobody explained. They may have concerns about the sponsor, the decision, or your approach. You might disagree with their explanation, but at least you’ll have something more useful than a guess.

Then make a specific request:

“When you interrupt, other people don’t get to finish. Can you let them finish and raise your objections when we discuss the proposals?”

If the behaviour continues after a clear request, involve the sponsor or co-facilitator and agree how to proceed. You shouldn’t have to spend the rest of the session repeatedly negotiating the same boundary.

Personal attacks or discriminatory remarks need an immediate response. Don’t wait for coffee while someone else has to sit there and take it.

Save the clever comeback for the journey home

The perfect reply will probably arrive five hours later, while you’re in the shower.

Leave it there. Getting a laugh at a participant’s expense may feel satisfying, but it can make other people hesitate before challenging you too.

I’d rather finish a workshop with a sceptical participant who had a fair hearing than with someone I publicly embarrassed into silence. They can dislike the exercise. They can question your choices. They still need to leave room for everyone else.